I

l :­L.

1.

I I-··

1. ·-

APPLICATION BY MR. R. SMITH TO ERECT A RETIREMENT VILLAGE, HOTEL

AND OPERA BOX AT HIGHNAM COURT

STATEMENT BY MRS. G. R. STEWART B.Sc . ,Dip . T.P . ,K. R.T . P. I .

on behalf of HIGHNAM PARISH COUNCIL

STANSGATE PLANNING CONSULTANTS 8 Shrieves Walk, Sheep Street,

Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6GJ

PROOF OF EVIDEBCE OF JIRS. G. R. STEWART B.Sc.,Dip.T.P.,K . R.T.P . I.

My name is Gillian Rose Stewart . I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Geography, a Diploma in Town Planning and I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute .

I have been employed in the profession of town planning since 1970 and have held a research post at Birmingham University, worked for a well­known architectural and planning consultancy practice and spent 6 years in local govern:ment, where I was responsible for the development control section of a large planning authority.

Since 1980 I have worked in private practice and have represented a wide range of clients in a variety of planning matters. I am a partner in the firm of Stansgate Planning Consultants.

I am familiar with the application site and surrounding area and with the relevant facts and issues relating to the matters which are the subject of this inquiry.

i { . ·,

I '

1 HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION OF HIGHIAJI COURT A1ID ITS SURROUJDIHGS

1.1 The statutory list drawn up under Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, has been submitted in evidence by the County Council and Borough Council. As a supplement to the factual information therein, I submit further documents as Appendix A which constitute a comprehensive review of the literature available on Highnam Court .

1. 2 To summarise, the Court itself is a Grade I country house probably built in 1658. The grounds of the Court contain a number of listed structures including walls, bridges, statues and steps etc . The Court stands in an extensive parkland setting although ornamental gardens, including several lakes, were added in the 19th Century . These gardens appear on the statutory register of gardens, <Grade II•> which retain their historic interest. The purpose of the register according to Circular 8/87 is to record their existence so that they may be safeguarded when new development is planned.

1.3

1. 4

The largest of the listed structures in the immediate vicinity of the Court is the stable block (Grade II) which stands a short distance to the north of the house. Further away to the east and just beyond the application site boundary is the Church of the Holy Innocents, another Grade I building. There are several other buildings in the group around the church, including the church lodge, the old school and school house and Parish Hall, all of which are in the Grade II category.

It will be apparent from this brief description that the quality of the buildings within the application site and on its eastern boundary is exceptional. Less than 2% of all Listed Buildi~gs in the country are currently in the Grade I category .

~ . . :

2 PLABJJIRG HISTORY OF HIGHIAJC COURT SIICE 1974

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

TG2775/f

Preece Payne Partnership

Change of use of ground floor to function rooms and of first and second floors to offices.

Refused

26.9.74

TG2775/g

Mr P.J.X . . Buchanan

Change of use from residential to accommodation for the elderly.

'withdrawn

30.5 . 77

T.LBC/70

Mr R. B. Smith

Move a stone dormer from the south elevation to be used as a new entrance surround on ground floor . Demolish and rebuild part of an outhouse. remove certain internal walls to provide studio . Provide a fire exit from basement. Remove part of a staircase. Alter and improve kitchen and sanitary facilities. Alter dwarf wall in grounds . Insert a new staircase from 1st to 2nd floor . Make openings in certain walls. Replace a rotted roof with a roof terrace, add new garage, greenhouse and firewood store.

Permitted

27.3.79

,. '

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

TG.2775/h

Mr R. B. Smith

Use of existing dwelling for :-1) occasional recitals or lecture recitals 2) occasional art exhibitions with sale of work 3) music studio/workshop with faci l ities for

recording . 4) short term residential study and meetings. Construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access. Provision of car parking facilities.

Permitted

15.7 . 80

TLBC/'70/A

Xr R Smith

Alterations to existing building, including the addition of four dormer windows in connec t ion with the provision of additional bedroom accommodation .

Consent

16.4.85

TG/2775/i

Mr R Smith

Change of use from residential/music centre to hotel.

Permitted

11. 6. 85

C" i

' i_ .

,,;__:

>t • . -

i-,.

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

Reference

Applicant

Development

Decision

Date of Decision

TG2775/j

Mr R Smith

Alterations and extension to existing building to provide 26 bedrooms.

Permitted

7.8 . 85

TLBC/70/B

Mr R Smith

Alterations and extension to existing building to provide 26 bedrooms

Consent

16.8.85

TG2775/K

Mr R Smith

Outline application for the erection of a retirement village, hotel and opera box inclu _ding the restoration of Highnam Court House and gardens . Construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access.

Not to refuse - called in by Secretary of State

17.2.87

2.1 The general site history is set out in the preceeding schedule. It is necessary to provide rather more detail about the progress of the current application through the procedures of the Borough Council .

2.2 The planning application was considered by the Planning Committee on 20th January 1987 when the Borough Planning Officer recommended that permision should be refused for three reasons relating to conflicts with approved Structure and Local Plan policies. The Committee

,;- -i (

( ·.

( .

r . .

deferred making a decision in order to visit the site and reconsidered the matter on 17th February 1987. Once again they wer e advised to refuse planning permission but resolved to accept the proposals in princ i ple and to advert i se the application as a material departure from the provisions of the Structure Plan and Local Plan. Further information from the applicant was sought but not received .

2 . 3 In August 1987 the application was called in by the Secretary of State for his determination . Papers relating to the Borough Council's consideration of the application are attached in Appendix B.

2 . 4 Following the decision of the Borough Council, one of the applicants, Mr T J Fenton, wrote to the Borough Council informing them of his decision to withdraw from the project. A copy of his letter is . included in the Appendix. There is a handwritten postscript addressed by Mr Fenton to Mrs J Smith who was then Chairman of the Parish Council. Mr R Smith is now the sole applicant and he has served the requisite Section 27 Notice on Mr Fenton who owns a substantial part of the application site.

r

i .

r --

i . ·

' ·'·

; .·

( · . . l ' ,· \ ~ -

3 CENTRAL GOVERJIXEHT PLAilIJIG POLICIES All) ADVICE

3 . 1 Development Control Policy Note No. 4 : "Development in Rural Areas"

This Policy Note was issued in 1969 but it remains relevant and was not cancelled in the governments recent far-reaching review of general policy guidance. It contains a statement of the basic strategy which continues to underpin the whole of the town planning system in this country, viz.

"One of the JDDst i:rrrpartant aims of planning is to see that the need for building land is met without spoiling the countryside or wasting good agricultural land.

Builiding in the open country, away from existing settlements or from areas allocated for development in development plans is therefore strictly controlled" (para 1).

3.2 It continues with more specific advice about development in or near villages:

"The demand for acca1111DDdatian away from the towns resulting from the growth of car ownership and better ca1DJ11Unicatians must be .met largely · within existing settlements, if it is :pat to submerge the open countryside. The extent to which the smaller towns and villages can absorb further development will vary according to local circumstances. It will be influenced by such factors as the physical setting, architectural or historic character, the availability of services, ca1D111Unicatian and traffic conditions. Some villages are suitable for considerable expansion; others have special qualities which are worth preserving and this :may restrict new building to minor "infilling" and replacements.

Reference should be made in each case to the local planning . authority's stated policy for the area and to any detailed plans they have prepared to guide development in particular villages" (paras 6 and 7 >

3.3 The review of general guidance to which I have referred resulted in the publication earlier this year of a number of documents giving "Planning Policy Guidance" . PPG 7 is entitled "Rural Enterprise and Development". The introduction to the document explains the need to foster rural enterprise whilst at the same time conserving the "nations countryside heritage"

In developing this concept the PPG acknowledges that housing development can be a use which is compatible with rural areas . But it states that it should be of sympathetic scale and character; well related in scale and location to existing development patterns of settlement and surrounding land uses.

('

' r

• . . , . • ,

\ :. \' ..

{ ,· ·

' -,,,__ . ...,.

Apart from these general documents the government also issues from time to time, circulars containing advice and guidance relating to specific matters. Several of these are relevant to this application.

3.4 Circular 22/80 contains a statement of the governments desire to see local authorities adopting a positive attitude to development

·except where there are "sound and clear-cut reasons for refusal". There is an unequivocal commitment in the circular to conserve and improve the countryside, natural habitats and areas of architectural, natural, historical or scientific interest and listed buildings. Indeed in para 17 the following statement appears:

"The Government are (sic) determined to implement current policies to preserve the best of our heritage"

The Circular goes on to advocate a flexible approach to the preservation of listed buildings through investment generated by an alternative use, and I shall refer to this in a subsequent section of my proof.

3.5 Circular 15/84 contains the governments views on the provision of land for private sector housing, based on its desire to encourage home ownership. However the circular contains a clear statement on conservation to the effect that:

"well established conservation policies should . be firmly maintained. It remains co:mm:i~ted to the need to conserve and improve the countryside, natural habitats and areas of architectural, natural, historical or scientific interest and listed buildings"

3.6 The main thrust of the circular is that "full and effective use must be made of land within existing built-up areas" . Only in this way will the objectives of preserving agricultrual land and the countryside in general be achieved. The circular goes on to place an obligation on local authorities to identify sufficient housing land within their areas to ensure that a 5 year supply <measured in relation to Structure Plan housing targets) is available at any given time. In the absence of such a 5 year supply a strong presumption in favour of housing proposals comes into force and especially compelling reasons for withholding planning permission are required.

3.7 An Annex to the circular restates advice orignally published in 22/80 to the effect that:

"Expansion of a town into the surrounding contryside is objectionable on planning grounds if it creates ribbons or

,···· : .

I.':.

..... >

1-J • ;

,.:..: __ -.

isolated pockets of development or reverses accepted policies for separating villages from towns, or if it conflicts with national policies for the protection of the environment such as those for safeguarding areas of . . . ,. high landscape value . "

:Much of the advice in 15/84 has been restated in PPG 3 "Land for Housing", issued in January this year. However, the PPG does contain up-dated advice and para 11 is relevant to this application in so far as it relates to "new settlements". It is made clear that these might range in scale from moderate sized townships to small villages. It continues:

"Well conceived schemes of this kind :may have a part to play in :meeting the demand for new housing, especially where the development provides for meeting all or JDOst of the costs of local infrastructure needed to service the site and to meet the need for community facilities generated by the new development. Any specific proposals by developers must be subject to normal planning procedures and must be considered within the framework of existing planning policies."

3.8 In 1985 the government issued a White Paper entitled •"Lifting the Burden" and with it a further Circular 14/85 which is a restatement of the principles of the planning system. The presumption in favour of deve~opment proposals reappears in a different formj the governments commitment to the need to preserve our heritage is reaffirmedj and an obligation is placed on local authorities to demonstrate that harm would be caused to "interests of aclrnowleged importance" if a refusal of planning permission is to be sustained. Those "interests" are not defined in the Circular but the White Paper includes a list of factors which must be indicative of the order of importance involved. One of the interests is the preservation of "our heritage of historic buildings and rural landscape" .

3.9 I turn now to review Circular 8/87 which deals exclusively with "Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas". The whole basis of the way in which historic buildings are treated in planning legislation is the desire to preserve the architectural integrity and setting of those buildings which are deemed worthy of such attention by virtue of their presence on the statutory list of buildings of historic or architectural interest. Highnam Court is in the top 2% of such buildings being Grade I category .

It would be easy to quote at length from this circular. There is something of relevance in almost every paragraph. I would commend it to the Inspector in its entirety but would draw attention to specific paragraphs as follows:

"It remains (the Governments) resolve to preserve the architectural heritage to which listed buildings and conservation areas make such an important contribution. (para 4)

' I L

' · :

L · ..

Historic buildings and conservation areas are vitally important to the enviromental quality of life in this country . Buildings of architectural and historic merit should receive very special attention." <para 5)

3.10 Section 56(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as amended by the 1980 Act requires authorities to have special regard to the desirabililty of preserving the listed building or its setting when considering planning applications which affect them. The Circular explains that:

•The setting of a building of special architectural or historic interest is often an essential feature of its character, especially if a garden or grounds have been laid out as an integral part of the design and layout of a listed house. It is important to consider the effect that proposed development may have on such buildings" <para 25)

In these circumstances authorities are urged to bring "fully informed opinion to bear on any development which by its character and/or location, might be held to have an adverse effect on buildings of special architectural or historic interest." The Circular advises that "in specially important cases, it may well be advisable for authorities to consider whether they should not seek independent professional advice on the proposals before reaching a decision on them". In this case, the local planning authority in the form of its Planning Committee chose to disregard the professional advice that it received from the Chief Planning Officer and from English Heritage.

3.11 The implication of advice in para. 25 of Circular 8/87 is that the proposed development would be described in sufficient - detail as part of the planning application to enable a thorough assessmerit •.,of its impact to be made. Indeed the Circular mentions the need (para 61) in some circumstances to ask applicants to submit detailed plans rather than dealing with a proposal in outline fonn . This advice is.given specifically in relation to development in sensitive parts of Conservation Areas but its common sense approach must be equally applicable to development affecting Listed Buildings. Indeed the advice that Councils should ensure that they bring to bear fully informed views on a proposal within the setting of a Listed Building presupposes that th~ development is described in sufficient detail to permit "well founded decisions" to be made .

3 . 12 The Town and Country Planning <General Development) Order 1977 as amended makes provision in Article 5(2) for local authorities to request the submission of such further details as they deem necessary to enable them to determine an outline planning application. This right has to be exercised within 28 days of the receipt of the application. The Borough Council did not exercise this right and by the time it had become apparent that the Planning Committee might be minded to approve the proposal, the opportunity provided by Statute to obtain further information had been passed.

' i I

'-

4 THE RELHVAICE OF CEWTRAL GOVERBJIEBT ADVICE

4 . 1 It is necessary to relate this welter of advice to the case in hand. Firstly, it is apparent that this application fa l ls square l y into the description of development affecting the setting of a Listed Building and that as such it should be the subject of particularly close scrutiny. Similarly there can be no doubt about the importance attached by government to the protection of the built environment and attractive landscape. These constitute "interests of acknowleged importance" in the terms of Circular 14/85 . In other words, notwithstanding the presumption in favour of development proposals these are matters of such compelling importance that they may outweigh the presumption and constitute sound reasons for withholding planning permission .

4.2 In order to assess the likely impact of a proposal upon the architectural integrity of a building or upon its setting, a certain amount of information must be available. As a minimum it would be helpful to know exactly where the development would take place and what it would look like, with special reference to the existing building. None of that information is available in this instance.

4.3 The effect of paras 25 and 26 of Circular 8/87 is in my opinion to place an obligation upon the applicant to demonstrate by means of the provision 9f sufficient detail that what is proposed will harmonise with its surroundings . . The applicant in this case has manifestly failed in that duty.

4.4 Prior to the opening of this inquiry no information was available about the exact number of retirement homes proposed, their location, means of access, built form, layout or appearance. Only a general indication of their disposition within the grounds of Highnam Court was given by means of a generalised patch of red ~ colour on a small scale plan . At the opening of the inquiry we were told that the housing area would be to the North west of the Court rather than to the North east as indicated on the coloured plan in the green brochure. It is impossible to ascertain how the new dwellings would relate visually to existing Listed Buildings including the church, or what effect the "village" would have on the appearance of the park land · setting of the Court. It is said in the text which is described as "an Outline Strategy for the Restoration and Development of the House and Grounds" that about 300 houses would be built. The author of the document acknowledges that:

"A superficial sketch design prepared without a sound foundation, could mislead judgement upon the final quality of the proposal ".

We do not even have the benefit of a superficial sketch design. All that we do have are platitudes and generalisations about the "elements of the problem to be reconciled". In my opinion that is insufficient to permit a favourable judgement to be made of the

1· I I .

likel y impact of the proposed development. An outline planning permission granted on the basis of this sketchy material would be completely open-ended . There is no basis upon which planning conditions might be devised which would put limits to the development proposed .

(.> '

f·.

,·.-...

\ .,

5 STRUCTURE AID LOCAL PLAI POLICIES

5.1 The Structure Plan for Gloucestershire was ·approved in September 1981 and remains in force as part of the Development Plan fo F the area. The main thrust of those policies concerned with the location of new housing development is to concentrate such development principally at the main centres of employment <POLICY H2), and to allow only infilling and small groups of dwellings in villages having a primary level of local community facilities and services (POLICY H4) . Highnam is recognised as a settlement to which Policy H4 applies. "Small groups" of dwellings are defined as comprising no more than 10 dwellings.

5 . 2 These policies have been referred to in some detail by the witness representing the County Council and it serves no purpose to repeat them in full. The policies which direct new development to certain locations are complemented by others (principally POLICIES H5 and H6) which impose severe restraints on development in smaller settlements and in the open countryside. In my opinion there can be no doubt that the application site lies outside the confines of any settlement and must therefore be subject to those policies which militate against any development in the open countryside .

5.3 These are reinforced by an explicit policy statement <POLICY 12) which confines new development of any sort to locations in or adjacent to existing settlements. Although the application site boundary extends as far east as the church, it is the case that the retirement village would be separated by some distance from the existing settlement of Highnam and could not be regarded as adjacent to it.

5. 4 Finally, POLICY BHE.1 emphasises the County Councfls commitment in association with the District Councils to promoting the conservation of the built environment and protecting and enhancing the character and environmental qualities of ex i sting settlements. POLICIES BHE2; BHE 5; and BHE 6 all deal positively with proposals which work towards this objective but are hedged about with provisos which seek to ensure visual harmony between existing and proposed development.

5.5 These policy considerations form the basis of the County Councils opposition to the proposal. It is a case which is wholeheartedly endorsed by the Parish Council.

5.6 A review of the County Structure Plan is under way; the Draft Alterations were published in Xay 198?. In general the policies relating to the provision of new housing in the County remain based on the same strategy; that is that the main housing locations are within or adjacent to the main settlements, with infilling and small groups of houses allowed in villages having appropriate services. No change is therefore proposed to POLICY H2 of the approved plan. Xinor modifications to POLICIES H3 and H4 are proposed. POLICY H5 restricting development to infilling only in

r· . I . I L

\.-1.

~--·

t • •,

smaller settlements remains intact, and it is proposed to ammend and strengthen POLICY H6 as follows :

"Elsewhere residential development will not normally be permitted"

This represents an unequivocal statement of the County Council's commitment ta the protection of open countryside from intrusive development. The approved Structure Plan contains general housing targets and does not seek ta control the pr ovision for groups with special needs such as the elderly. These are not considered ta be appropriate matters far inclusion in a strategic planning document .

5 . 7 Subject ta minor modifications arising from the public consultation process, these are the policy changes whi ch will be submitted to the Secretary of State later this year far his approval . In the terms of para 1 . 12 of Circular 22/84, these amendments have all but reached the second stage of the procedures described therein and are to be accorded some weight in the determination of this application. In other words there is a fundamental conflict between the proposed development and the approved and emerging strategic policies which are applicable ta the area . Although the Draft Alterations document makes reference at para 3.2.5 ta the changing age structure of the population , the proposed policy amendments still make no specific reference to the housing needs of the elderly.

5.8 Highnam falls within the coverage of the Gloucester Iorth Environs Local Plan which was adopted as a statutory local plan by the Borough Council in 1983. POLICY H4 reads as follows:

HThe Borough Council will not normally permit further residential development at Highnam, over and above existing co11l111itments, with the exception of infilling within the _existing village of Highnam subject to considerations of siting, ac cess, design and infrastructure".

5.9 The explanation for this policy appears at para 4 . 15 of the Local Plan as fallows:

"Beyond existing commitments , there are major constraints on further residential development within the area, notably Grade 1 agricultural land, and very limited drainage and other infrastructure capacity. Further, ~tis considered that Highnam should be allowed a stabilising period in order for the co11I111Unity to settle down and to enable · community facilities and services to be provided to serve the growing village . Opportunities for minor infilling development within the old village of Highnam are likely to be very limited although planning approval may be given in appropriate cases subject to considerations of siting, access, design and infrastructure and provided that no extension of the village into open countryside areas occurs"

I., . . l .. ~-

i' ' I

' i i .

5.10 The Local Plan also addressed the issues relating to the provision of services and infrastructure in the plan area . With regard to Highnam it noted that Highnam is served by medical facilities in Gloucester, and in respect of the rural parishes as a whole some problems were identified in terms of accessibility, especially for the elderly and mothers with young children, to medical facilities. There is already a deficiency therefore in respect of accessibility to medical services in Highnam. The existing GP's surgery in Highnam is already too small to serve the existing community.

5.11 The Local Plan noted the improvements which are necessary to the foul sewage system in order to allow development to occur . It was recorded that there is very little spare capacity in the system at Highnam.

5.12 Highnam at present has one general store/post office. It was predicted that most residents of the expanded village would look to Gloucester for their shopping needs but that the committeed housing area might justify the provision of a further shop . Consultation responses to the local plan suggested that a "parade" of shops would not be welcome even if they were viable, because of the suburbanising effect of such a development .

5.13 Finally the Local Plan includes a general policy which commits the Council to resisting proposals whch involve the demolition of or alterations to the character of Listed Buildings (POLICY ENV 8).

5.14 The Borough Council monitors progress towards the achievement of Local Plan objectives and a report on this matter was considered by the Planning Committee on August 4th 1987. The plan covers the ten year period from 1981 - 1991 and the review noted that in the first half of the plan period, approximately 67% of the targeted growth in housing had been completed. Twenty one per cent of those completions were in Highnam parish. In purely numerical terms . a more than adequate building rate has been achieved. Given existing commitments in the form of planning permissions, it is apparent that the 1991 growth target will be exceeded by a significant amount. The report also notes that a reasonable range of house types, sizes and prices have been built and that "the needs of smaller households in particular have been catered for . " <para 13). I have attached extracts from this document as Appendix C.

5.15 As to the Gloucester Policy Area in particular the Council states that sufficient land is available for forecast needs and that almost all of the areas housing requirements will be met within or adjacent to Gloucester itself. The report states that:

"Preference will continue to be given to residential development taking place on urban land rather than green field sites, although it is recognised that such land may come forward at a reduced rate .. .. No specific allocation has been made to the villages in the rural parts of the Policy Area, as while they

'. ,-: '

will continue to accommodate so.me new housing development, i t is expe c ted to be very lim i ted . "

5 . 16 The availability of housing land as measured against Structure Plan targets is assessed annually by the District and County Councils in Gloucestershire. Using the residential method advocated by the DOE Circular 15/84, the Housing Land Availability report relating ta the situation at 1st January 1987 reveals that there is a surplus of 304i identified house plots, over and above the 5 year requirement established by reference to Structure Plan policy .

5. 17 Whilst this in itself is not a justifiable reason for refusing permission far development an other land, it cannot be argued that there is any shortage of housing land which justi f ies the erection of a "retirement village" in the grounds of Highnam Court .

I I

:·: I· I 1,,, _ _ •

6

6.1

6.2

6.3

XUSICAL ASSOCIATIO:IS OF HIGH:IAJI COURT

The association of the applicant with opera is central to this proposal. It is apparent that in the past musical activities have taken place at the Court although the frequency of these events is open to question. Nevertheless the staging of opera and other musical activities at the Court seems to be a fundamental objective of the project. However there is a certain amount of muddled thinking in the project brochure about the role of the opera box in the overall scheme. The commercial activities associated with the opera box eg. conferences, TV studios etc are "planned to cover the running costs". Elsewhere we are told that the maintenance costs of the grounds "will be met by charges upon visitors to the opera box". In another place it is said that "sponsorship for major art initiatives can be found and the opera box is well placed to attract such funds both as a venture in Gloucestershire and as a contribution to the growth of music drama". What is the reality of the situation? Will the opera box be self financing through charges to visitors and commercial users? Will it generate a surplus sufficient to contribute to the maintenance of the grounds? Or will it require subsidy and sponsorship? The reference in Mr Elsom's evidence to the appointment of an appeals manager introduces a further variation in the equation.

Enquiries locally have revealed that there are three venues in Gloucester where amateur opera is stagedj that professional opera is staged in Bath, Bristol and Cheltenham from time to timej and that opera lovers travel to Cardiff and Birmingham from this area. No firm evidence has been advanced by the applicant to show conclusively that the opera box will be profit making.

It would appear that the provision of an opera box and the consequent flowering of musical activity at Highnam Court is an objective of the project per se. Mr Harrison in his opening described it as the second objective of the project, and the retirement village was described by him as the "enabling development" which would provide the funds for the restoration and opera objectives. The provision of an opera venue was further described as a "significant planning gain". "Planning gain" is defined in Circular 22/83 which deals exclusively with this subject as:

•a term which has come to be applied whenever, in connection with the grant of planning permission, a local planning authority seeks to impose on a developer an obligation to carry out works not included in the development for which permission has been sought or to ;make some payment or confer some extraneous right or benefit in return for permitting the development to take place" (para 2)

r ··•;

'

' .

The Circular also :makes it clear that in some cases the developer may offer some works or payment in applying for planning permission, and that the advice in the Circular is equall y relevant in these circumstances.

6 . 4 I see a fundamental conflict in the descr i ption of the opera box as both an objective of the project , and a planning gain . If it is the former, then it is an integral part of the development for which permission is sought and it must be judged on its own merits as such . In these circumstances material considerations must be: is this a suitable location for an opera venue of the size envisaged and more importantly, what is the environmental impact of a building of the requisite scale likely t o be on the Gr ade I Listed Building nea r by? If on the other hand, the opera box is to be regarded as a planning gain, the advice in Circular 22/83 becomes relevant and the tests set out in para 6 a r e appli cable .

6.5 There are four tests described in the Circular . The f i rst r e l ates to the need for the feature:

6 . 6

Is the "planning gain", ie, the opera box, "needed to enable the development to go ahead? Although on the first day of the inquiry the importance of treating the individual elements of the proposal as an intregrated package was emphasized, it is by no means clear how the opera box is "needed to enable the development to go ahead". Indeed we are told that the reverse is true, ie the "village" is needed to enable the opera box and restoration to go ahead.

The second and fourth tests in the Circular relate to financial payments and to mixed developments in which the objective is to achieve "an acceptable balance of uses" . Nei ther is strictly applicable to the provision of the opera box . The third test _set out in the the Circular refers again to the necess i ty of provid'ing a "planning gain" in order to enable development to go ahead . The examples given are car parking space, and public open space for recreation purposes. The provision of an opera box does not make in my opinion acceptable the development of the retirement village. Again the arguement comes full circle . It is apparently the village which enables the construction of the opera box .

6.7 The opera box cannot therefore be regarded as a planning gain in the accepted sense and in the sense used in the relevant Circular. It is as Mr Harrison stated at first an objective of the proposal, but as he said, a secondary objective, the primary one being the restoration of the Court and its grounds. In the absence of any sound financial appraisal of the opera facility, I can only express doubt as to whether the provision of such a facility is the most effective way of achieving the prime objective, namely the provision of funds for the restoration of the house and gardens . Indeed the financial appraisal presented does not suggest that the opera box will contribute to the restoration fund. It merely serves to emphasise that the capital costs in providing the opera venue are considerable. Capital cost of constructing an opera box

j I .

j. i . .

runs into many millions of pounds which in itself will act as a drain on the resources raised from the construct i on of houses. The bland assertion that the opera box will not require subsidy is unsubstantiated at the time of writing.

1-, \

I . l

7 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF APPLICAJITS PROPOSALS

7 . 1 I have no doubt that Mr Smith has a vision of the future of Highnam Court and that that vision stems from a genuine desire to safeguard and restore the house and gardens whilst at the same time indulging his passion for music in general and opera in particular. Whilst not intending in any way to impugn his motives or his enthusiasm, I have to say that I consider that his proposals lack realism and credibility, and that much if not all, of the evidence presented on his behalf to this inquiry, is an attempt to rationalise and justify at the eleventh hour an ill-conceived package of proposals which do not respect the listed buildings and their setting which he seeks to preserve.

7.2 The proposed scheme for a hotel use, an opera box and a retirement village would be ambitious in any circumstances . To attempt to locate it in open countryside and within the settings of two Grade I Listed Buildings seems almost perverse. Every housing and landscape policy in the Structure Plan militates against it . As if this were not enough, there is inadequate capacity in the sewerage system; a new road layout is required; the nearest settlement has undergone considerable recent expansion and requires a period of stability; the local plan notes that access to shopping and some medical facilities is difficult for the elderly and that local people wil continue to rely on Gloucester some 2 miles away for their shopping needs; and English Heritage will not support the scheme in the absence of detailed proposals.

7.3 In the face of such adversity, it might be expected that the applicant would attempt to demonstrate that some or all of these problems are capable of resolution. Eight months after the date of the last postponement of the inquiry and on the eve literally of the opening of the inquiry, there was no evidence whatsoever that these problems had been addressed in any meaningful way. Information has emerged in the course of the inquiry but much of it has only served to show that prior to the design of the package of proposals and even up to the opening of the inquiry, little co ­ordinated thought had been given to the interrelationship of the elements of the package or to the fundamental planning issues which must be addressed. Notwithstanding the presumption in favour of development. there must in my view be an obligation upon the applicant to satisfy the Secretary of State that development of this magnitude in close proximity to Grade I Listed Buildings is acceptable in principle if he is to benefit from the grant of an outline planning permission.

7.4 Up to the opening of the inquiry, the "Outline Strategy for the Restoration and Development of the House and Grounds" dated November 1986 remained the only information available about the applicants intentions. It describes the aims of the project which revolves around the restoration of the house and garden. The

': ·

document describes the need to secure the future of the building by raising funds. It describes the building and the grounds, and there are general statements which purport to explain how capital works and running costs will be financed by visitor charges and service charges. It is said that these charges will be modest but that in order to generate sufficient funds, the whole scheme as devised will need to be implemented. During the first day of the inquiry we learnt a little about the size of the opera box, the size of the hotel, the size and number of dwellings proposed . On the second day we learnt that the professionals now employed disagreed with Mr Serjeants proposals and that a significant relocation of the opera box is now suggested, together with a change in the location of the retirement village. Moreover substantial car parking areas are now included which did not feature in Mr Serjeant' brochure. In my experience, a project of this sort is invariably presented at an early date with full costings -and financial projections. One wonders why such information has been so late in appearing in this case. If the raison d'etre of the retirement village as an exception to approved planning policies is that it will finance the restoration and opera aims of the project, then surely the Secretary of State is entitled to know exactly how the two parts of the project are related financially. There are many questions that arise in my mind about the project but the major one is: how can the selling prices of the dwellings in the retirement village cover the building costs of the houses themselves; the contractors profit; the land aqu _isi tion costs; ·the costs of the infrastructure especially drainage and highways works; the cost of providing community services such as the meeting rooms, village trust offices and mini bus services that are mentioned in the brochure; the restoration of the house and gardens; the construction of the opera box; the maintenance costs of the restored gardens; and any subsidy that is required to stage opera at this venue? I am especially sceptical when I see that the draft Section 52 Agre~ment prepared by the Borough Council requires the repair and restoration of Highnam Court, its gardens, lakes and watercourses and the construction of the opera box prior to the completion and occupation of only 50 dwellings on fhe site, although this figure was subsequently amended to 100 dwellings.

7.5 According to the "outline strategy" submitted with the planning application the parkland between the Court and the church was the area chosen for the development of a "retirement village" of some 300 houses. At the opening of the inquiry, Mr Harrison stated that the village would be built to the north west of the Court and this was confirmed by Kiss Tinkler. In a case of this importance, one might be forgiven to expecting to know the location of the proposed housing area. Is it as shown on Mr Serjeants plan or as described by Miss Tinkler? The plan, reproduced as part of Mr Elsom's DOCUMENT 1 from Mr Serjeants original, omits the shading altogether. What therefore constitutes the exact proposal under consideration at this inquiry? This state of uncertainty and confusion would be unfortunate in any routine planning application for permission to develop land but on a site within the setting of

' t; .

I i

:- . 1

two Grade I Listed Buildings and a listed garden, it is in my opinion, unacceptable as a basis for sound decision making. This illustrates the central difficulty in this case . Mr Serjeant's plan was illustrative; it was not binding upon the applicants . Miss Tinkler's plan has the same status. It merely illustrates possible location of the housing area. In respect of the opera box, we have seen a major relocation proposed. The final siting and design of this substantial building would be determined following an architectural competition for which the brief has yet to be devised. My point is tht there is no substance in this application upon which reliance can be placed, and which could form the basis of an outline permission which adequately defined that which is permitted.

7.6 It might be expected that in this unique setting, particular care would be taken to demonstrate the impact that the design and location .of the proposed houses would have on the listed buildings and their setting. On the contrary, no attempt was made ta do so, until the second day of the inquiry. We are told in the Dennis Serjeant supporting document that the retirement village will Nhide behind trees and in the folds of the land". This seemed ta me a particularly fanciful statement. Where are the folds in the land which will conceal 300 houses? There are none and Miss Tinkler has since confirmed that the only "fold in the land" <and that is a small one) is to the west of the area indicated for housing by Mr Serjeant. I have never encountered vagueness of this magnitude in a proposal of this kind. It has emerged that 300 dwellings would be built an a 10 acre area, but we are also told that only 2 acres of that overall area would be covered with buildings with the remainder left open for landscaping and parking. If 250,000 sq . ft. of floorspace (or almost 6 acres of floorspace) is to be located on 2 acres of land it follows that the development must be 3 storeys high throughout. This is high density development in parkland around a Grade I Listed Building. In addition more :t~~n 3 acres of parking is required, which must be accommodated in a Grade II• garden.

7.7 In addition I fail to see haw the likely impact of the proposed opera box an the Court itself can be properly assessed in the absence of any firm and dependable indication of its size or its proposed location in relation ta that building. An outline planning permission has the same status as a full planning permission save that same matters of detail remain ta be approved subsequently. In other words it commits the Council or the Secretary of State ta the principle of the proposed development . That principle should only be approved where there is a reasonable expectation that acceptable details are likely to be achievable . In this case it is my opinion that there is considerable doubt as to whether satisfactory details can be submitted. I do not believe that a retirement village and an opera box can be erected on the application site without causing unacceptable harm ta the integrity of the fine buildings in the vicinity. Nothing in the applicants case convinces me otherwise. In fact, all we are told about the opera box is that its architectural form is that "of a box

,·

<: i

' \ ..

' i

:.-!·

freestanding and independant", <sic), but a box in the form of "a grand temple". At the opening of the inquiry, it was learned that the auditorium would seat 700 patrons, and subsequently discussion of the height of the building and the size of its "footprint" has only served to reinforce my fears.

7.8 In conclusion I find the proposals vague, lacking credibility and realism, and above all, unsupported by sufficient detail to enable a favourable assessment to be made of the likely impact of the proposals upon the listed buildings and their setting. Moreover the proposal for the retirement village displays to my mind a degree of muddled thinking. If the village is aimed at 55 year olds who are active and have no particular mobility probleJDS, I would ask why they constitute a "special needs" group for housing purposes? It is said that the village would not comprise sheltered housing and that the occupants would not be the frail elderly . The intended occupants are in fact normal middle - aged people who happen not to work but who could buy into the existing housing market . In other words there is no need to make special provision for them either in the housing market generally or at Highnam Court in particular. The applicant cannot have it both ways. He is either providing conventional housing for active middle-aged people or he is providing specialist housing for elderly people who have special needs. Mr Hirmans evidence suggests that the former is closest to the truth. If that is so, the attempts to -justify the retirement vil+age on the grounds of unsatisfied local needs for the elderly are spurious. Indeed Xr Hiram asserted that the dwellings would have national and international appeal.

7 . 9 The rationale behind the scheme is said to be the need to raise funds to safeguard the Court and its grounds for the future . The concept of selling off land for housing development _in these circumstances is not a new one but to link it to a project ie, the opera box which must represent a drain on resources rather than a contributor to the restoration fund, seems illogical.

7.10 Circular 8/87 deals at some length with finding new uses for old buildings in order to preserve them. It acknowledges that in many cases historic buildings cannot continue to be used for their original purpose. It urges local authorities to take a flexible and sympathetic attitude to proposals for changes of use if by that means, the necessary investment in a building can be secured. But it issues a note of warning to the effect that unsympathetic development in close proximity to the listed building can mar its appearance or make its future use unattractive or untenable . <para 20)

7.11 In my opinion there is a real likelihood that the opera box and retirement village would so harm the setting of Highnam Court that that which the project seeks to protect is actually destroyed.

7.12 The Borough Council has already granted planning permission for the use of the Court as a hotel including a 26 bedroom extension. This permission has not been implemented. The Parish Council did not

r -1

I ! l •. •

r. i I .

I

r · .

oppose the change of use of the Court to a hotel, nor did it oppose the 26 bedroom extension. It supports the objective of restoring the house and grounds and recognises the need to generate funds to achieve that objective. But it does not accept on the basis of the available evidence that what is now applied for will secure the achievement of that objective.